The lawyer for the bomb suspects insists they are innocent..How does she know?

[Halibut 12]

In the commotion caused it was grappled from a coppers hand and fired, missed his target and shot the injured man. if you have ever been in a scuffle you will know these things happen in an instant.

 

So you're suggesting the injured man shot himself? Or that the gun fell/was knocked out of the Policemans hand and accidentally discharged? Possible but really quite unlikely. It was a shoulder wound allegedly.

Far more likely that it was an aimed shot fired by a police officer, I think.

[Bartfarst 10]

If you came downstairs at first light and found your house full of policemen, would you start fighting with them? Of course not, so why did these guys, even to the point of pistols being fired.

Halibut, you will be fried on this one

Halibut is fried each and every time the fish speaks - but fails to realise this.

[anlabystreet 12]

well...bad as the coppers are..and there are some bad ones...we would be in a hell of a state without them...and its still the best police force in the world

[Teabag 10]

no and the lawyer wasnt there either ..so wheres her evidence for the assertions

 

The guy who was shot ......via his lawyer acting on his behalf issued a statement on Newsnight this evening agreeing that these types of police actions are necessary due to the terrorist threat but the police were trigger happy and had been fed the wrong information. If this guy is the real deal then I think this is more than a generous statement...don't you think?

The police themselves have found no evidence of a terrorist threat at the address.

 

Perhaps the original poster of the thread should now make a comment?

[anlabystreet 12]

The guy who was shot ......via his lawyer acting on his behalf issued a statement on Newsnight this evening agreeing that these types of police actions are necessary due to the terrorist threat but the police were trigger happy and had been fed the wrong information. If this guy is the real deal then I think this is more than a generous statement...don't you think?

The police themselves have found no evidence of a terrorist threat at the address.

 

Perhaps the original poster of the thread should now make a comment?

certainly...but time will tellif they are guilty or not....but again at the risk of repeating myself...i dont know if they are guilty..BUT NEITHER DOES SHE !!!...but she is being paid megabucks to make statements she cannot possibly justify

[Halibut 12]

If you came downstairs at first light and found your house full of policemen, would you start fighting with them? Of course not, so why did these guys, even to the point of pistols being fired.

Halibut, you will be fried on this one

 

There is absolutely no credible evidence that these men struggled. The lawyers statement refers to an admission that one of the men shouted.

Before you talk about me being 'fried' I suggest you wait till there is some credible evidence to back up your statement, which, as far as I can see is guesswork dressed up as fact.

[Toby 10]

Here we go again with the old chestnut.....if all else fails use a cliche thats been around for fifty years...i suggest before you make stupid comment you consider its just possible that i might think they are guilty because of all the police involvement but just for your information..i already stated further down this thread that nobody can help what colour they are or what they look like...and furthermore...i dont read the sunday people..what do you read ??...the sunday sport??

 

I'm not sure which old chestnut you're referring to.

 

I tend to stay out of these spittle flecked "don't trust the fuzzy wuzzy" arguments that pop up on here all the time, but the irony of your post is genuinely beautiful.

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that you've said that lawyers involved with the case can't possibly know what's happening, whereas you know that the bloke who got shot was guilty (you don't say what of).

 

Do you see that it doesn't add up, or has it really passed you by?

[Halibut 12]

certainly...but time will tellif they are guilty or not....but again at the risk of repeating myself...i dont know if they are guilty..BUT NEITHER DOES SHE !!!...but she is being paid megabucks to make statements she cannot possibly justify

 

And at the risk of repeating what other posters have already said there's no reason to believe she was getting paid 'megabucks' - and every reason to believe she was doing her job to the best of her ability, i.e. being a professional.

[Toby 10]

well i personally think they are probably guilty

 

 

i dont know if they are guilty

 

Ah, I see what you're saying.

[Teabag 10]

certainly...but time will tellif they are guilty or not....but again at the risk of repeating myself...i dont know if they are guilty..BUT NEITHER DOES SHE !!!...but she is being paid megabucks to make statements she cannot possibly justify

 

In law, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt not the other way round.

 

'Innocent until proven guilty'..the defence do not have to make any assertion if they so wish...you can go to trial and not even make any statement apart from entering a plea of 'not guilty' - it is the prosecution's job to prove guilt.

 

We have an adversarial court system...that is both sides argue from their particular standpoints...Defence and Prosecution

 

It really is a basic point that is being made for you anlabystreet:help:

[anlabystreet 12]

I'm not sure which old chestnut you're referring to.

 

I tend to stay out of these spittle flecked "don't trust the fuzzy wuzzy" arguments that pop up on here all the time, but the irony of your post is genuinely beautiful.

 

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that you've said that lawyers involved with the case can't possibly know what's happening, whereas you know that the bloke who got shot was guilty (you don't say what of).

 

Do you see that it doesn't add up, or has it really passed you by?

 

....youre doing it again...since when did i say he was guilty???look back all the way on this thread...i never said he was guilty at all...and just cos those lawyers are involved in the case doesnt mean they know what happened ...they werent there...youre making assumptions and as far as your second paragraph goes.. yes i forgive you for being wrong

[Toby 10]

....youre doing it again...since when did i say he was guilty???

 

err,

 

well i personally think they are probably guilty

 

It was that bit.